FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative

Boston-Springfield-New Haven-Montreal

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 Federal Railroad Administration
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

2

1 INTRODUCTION

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Vermont Agency of 

Transportation (VTrans) are conducting a feasibility and planning study – the Northern New 

England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) – that examines the opportunities and impacts of 

adding more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail service on two major rail routes, 

the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route (the NNEIRI Study). The Inland Route runs 

between Boston, Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut via Springfield, Massachusetts. 

The Boston-to-Montreal Route runs between Boston and Montreal, Quebec via Springfield. The 

two routes share trackage between Boston and Springfield, Massachusetts, and are collectively 

identified in this document as the NNEIRI Corridor. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided grant funding to MassDOT and VTrans for 

the NNEIRI Study. The NNEIRI Study team consists of MassDOT and VTrans, in coordination 

with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). The NNEIRI Study: defines and 

evaluates a Build Alternative, described in Section 5, for implementing improved passenger rail 

service in the NNEIRI Corridor; identifies and evaluates the potential environmental effects of 

railroad infrastructure and service improvements necessary to increase train speed and 

frequency; forecasts ridership and revenue; and estimates capital and operating costs in two 

segments of the NNEIRI Corridor: the Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts segment and the 

Springfield, Massachusetts to US/Canada border segment.

1

In June 2016, FRA, MassDOT, and VTrans evaluated the NNEIRI Study in an Environmental 

Assessment (EA). The EA analyzes and documents whether the NNEIRI Study would have 

significant effects on the environment. The EA is a Tier 1 analysis and addresses broad issues 

and impacts associated with the Build Alternative. Tier 2 environmental documents would be 

prepared for component projects that receive Federal funding.

MassDOT and VTrans, in consultation with FRA, prepared the EA in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., its 

implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999). FRA has made this Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the information included in the EA. 

2 STUDY AREA

The NNEIRI Corridor is 470 miles long and is comprised of two major rail routes known as the 

Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route (see Figure 2-1). The Inland Route runs west

from South Station in Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts via Worcester. From Springfield, the

Inland Route continues south to New Haven, Connecticut where it connects to Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor. 

 

1

The NNEIRI Study did not estimate capital and operating costs along the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield 

(NHHS) segment because these were previously considered as part of the 2012 NHHS Intercity Passenger Rail 

Corridor Program environmental assessment. For more information, visit: http://www.nhhsrail.com/ and 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0433. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

3

Figure 2-1: NNEIRI Corridor

The Boston-to-Montreal Route follows the Inland Route to Springfield then runs northerly 

through Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, Massachusetts. In Vermont, the Route continues 

north to White River Junction, northwest to Montpelier and Essex Junction, north to St. Albans, 

and crosses the Canadian border at Alburgh, Vermont. The route terminates at Central Station in 

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Ownership of the 470-mile long NNEIRI Corridor varies by segment, as follows:

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 44 miles between Boston and Worcester;

 CSX Transportation Corporation (CSX): 55 miles between Worcester and Springfield;

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 49 miles between Springfield and East Northfield, 

Massachusetts;
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

4

 New England Central Railroad (NECR): 207 miles from East Northfield, Massachusetts 

to three miles south of the U.S./Canada border;

 Canadian National Railroad (CN): 53 miles from three miles south of the U.S./Canada 

border to Montreal; and

 Amtrak: 62 miles from Springfield to New Haven.

3 PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose

The purpose of the NNEIRI Study is to enhance intercity transportation choices in the New 

England region, particularly between major cities and the smaller cities and rural areas of the 

NNEIRI Corridor, by improving, through more frequent and higher speed service, intercity 

passenger rail service on two major rail routes, the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal 

Route. 

Need

The need for the NNEIRI Study is based on the following: many small and medium size cities 

and economic centers geographically dispersed across New England are not adequately served 

by intercity passenger rail service along the NNEIRI Corridor. With the exception of the 

Springfield to New Haven segment, only one train per day provides intercity service on the 

NNEIRI Corridor. Resident, employees, and visitors would benefit from improved transportation 

connections between these centers. Additionally, strong sustained increases in Amtrak ridership 

in New England show that demand for intercity transportation in the NNEIRI Corridor is 

trending towards alternative transportation modes, including intercity passenger rail. Between 

1997 and 2012, ridership on Amtrak lines serving New England increased by 71%, with even 

greater increases in specific metropolitan areas.2 Many highways along the NNEIRI Corridor 

experience periodic congestion and capacity issues making rail travel a more attractive 

alternative. According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard3report, yearly delay per auto 

commuter4in the Boston metropolitan area was 64 hours. Hartford and New Haven commuters 

experienced 45 and 40 hours of yearly delay per auto commuter, respectively. Introducing 

additional intercity passenger rail services would provide a competitive modal option for travel 

in the NNEIRI Corridor. Improvements and expansion of intercity passenger rail service would 

enhance options for the mobility and connectivity needed in the NNEIRI Corridor for the region 

to grow and prosper. 

 

2

Brookings Institution, 2013.

3

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX. August 2015.

4 Yearly delay per auto commuter is the extra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who 

commute in private vehicles in the urban area.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

5

4 ALTERNATIVES

FRA and the NNEIRI Study Team evaluated two alternatives in the EA: (1) the No-Build 

Alternative; and (2) the Build Alternative. 

a. Initial Alternatives

At the beginning of the alternatives development process, the NNEIRI Study Team defined 18 

initial alternatives with ranges of speed, frequency, and equipment. The NNEIRI Study Team 

analyzed these alternatives to assess impacts on ridership and train performance. 

Based on the results of the NNEIRI Study Team’s analysis of the 18 initial alternatives and the

input provided by stakeholders and the public (see Section 7 for more information), the initial 

alternatives were screened down to three preliminary build alternatives. The three preliminary 

build alternatives, which are described below, represent the range of potential service and speed

options that are the most feasible and efficient based on the analysis of the 18 initial

alternatives. These three preliminary build alternatives meet the NNEIRI Study’s Purpose and 

Need in a cost effective manner.

b. Preliminary Build Alternatives

The alternatives analysis in the EA provides a comparison of the three preliminary build 

alternatives and the No-Build Alternative based on preliminary service plans, ridership forecasts, 

capital costs, and operations and maintenance costs (O&M). Table 5-1 summarizes these criteria 

for each of the three preliminary build alternatives and No-Build Alternative. 

Table 5-1: Alternatives Comparison 

Alternative Capital Costs Operating Support Annual Riders (2035)

No-Build No additional capital 

costs

No additional operating 

costs

79,900 riders

Preliminary Build 

Alternative 1

$615-785 million $24 million 681,500 riders

Preliminary Build 

Alternative 2

$1,065-1,350 million $39 million 1,201,200 riders

Preliminary Build 

Alternative 3

$1,255-1,590 million $48 million 1,334,800 riders

At a high-level, NNEIRI Corridor-wide environmental screening was completed during the 

preliminary alternatives analysis to identify any known significant impacts that would result 

from the proposed preliminary alternatives. The NNEIRI Study Team found that impacts along

the NNEIRI Corridor are anticipated to be generally minor and moderate with some minor 

impacts in specific locations due to operations and infrastructure needs; however, no impacts are

anticipated to be significant because the infrastructure improvements, including the restoration of 

second track along this historically double tracked railroad, would occur within existing railroad 

right-of-way (ROW).
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

6

Preliminary Build Alternative 1 - Corridor Service: Preliminary Build Alternative 1 would 

provide local service (i.e., service that stops at all stations) on the NNEIRI Corridor. In addition 

to the passenger rail services identified in the No-Build Alternative (see Section 4d. below), 

Preliminary Build Alternative 1 would provide four daily round trip trains between Boston and 

New Haven, two daily round trip trains between Boston and Montreal, and one daily round trip 

train between New Haven and Montreal. Speeds on the NNEIRI Corridor would be improved to 

60 mph – the current maximum speed limit – in locations where the speed is currently slower

and standard train equipment would be used. Infrastructure upgrades between Boston and 

Springfield and Springfield and Montreal would include adding sidings and making track and

bridge improvements. Preliminary Build Alternative 1 is the least expensive of the three

preliminary build alternatives, with an estimated cost of $615-$785 million, and would result in 

the least ridership, with an estimated 681,500 passengers annually. 

Preliminary Build Alternative 2 - Corridor Service with Speed Improvements: Preliminary 

Build Alternative 2 would add to the services provided by Preliminary Build Alternative 1 with 

the addition of four daily round trip express trains between Boston and New Haven, one daily 

round trip express train from Boston to Montreal, and one daily round trip express train from

New Haven to Montreal. Preliminary Build Alternative 2 would also increase maximum train

speeds to 79 mph and would use standard operations and train equipment. Infrastructure 

upgrades would include the improvements described in Preliminary Build Alternative 1 and a 

second track for all single track segments in the Worcester to Springfield Corridor as well as 

additional passing sidings in Vermont. Preliminary Build Alternative 2 is estimated to require 

capital costs of $1,065-$1,350 million. Under Preliminary Build Alternative 2, estimated 

ridership would increase by 76% over Preliminary Build Alternative 1, to 1,201,200 passengers

annually. 

Preliminary Build Alternative 3 - Corridor Service with Speed and Equipment

Improvements: Preliminary Build Alternative 3 would, in addition to providing the service in 

Preliminary Build Alternatives 1 and 2, add five daily local round trip trains between Boston 

and Springfield. Preliminary Build Alternative 3 would also increase maximum train speeds to 

90 mph and would utilize new tilting train sets. Necessary infrastructure upgrades for 

Preliminary Build Alternative 3 would include improvements to the existing railroad ROW, full 

train signalization, and additional sidings/double tracking. Under Preliminary Build Alternative 

3, stations for non-express trains would be the same as in Preliminary Build Alternative 1 and 

would include the addition of express service for certain routes as in Preliminary Build 

Alternative 2. Preliminary Build Alternative 3 would include all of the capital improvements 

and services indicated in Preliminary Build Alternative 2 with the additional infrastructure and 

operations changes. Capital costs for Preliminary Build Alternative 3 are estimated to be $1,255-

$1,590 million and ridership is expected to be 1,334,800 annual riders, approximately 96% more

annual riders than Preliminary Build Alternative 1. 

c. Evaluation of Preliminary Build Alternatives

There are limited locations on the NNEIRI Corridor that enable trains to operate at 90 mph due 

to track geometry. As a result, the travel time savings provided by Preliminary Build Alternative 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

7

3 compared to Preliminary Build Alternative 2 are significantly limited and did not justify the 

higher cost. Additionally, ridership would be significantly less under the Preliminary Build 

Alternative 1 with a maximum speed of 60 mph as compared to Preliminary Build Alternative 2 

with a maximum speed of 79 mph. For these reasons, the NNEIRI Study Team considered 

Preliminary Build Alternative 2 to be the most promising of the three preliminary build 

alternatives due to a combination of infrastructure constraints, ridership, and costs. With some 

modifications described in the following section, the NNEIRI Study Team carried forward 

Preliminary Build Alternative 2 for further analysis in the EA. 

d. No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative includes all recently completed, ongoing, and planned improvements 

to the NNEIRI Corridor through 2035, including improved New Haven-Hartford-Springfield 

(NHHS) rail service, Springfield Union Station improvements, expansion of South Station in 

Boston, extension of the Amtrak Vermonter to Montreal, and improvements to the Montreal-area 

rail network. The No-Build Alternative does not include any additional improvements beyond 

those that have been recently completed, or are currently underway or planned for the NNEIRI 

Corridor. Under the No-Build Alternative, the maximum train speed is 59 mph on both the 

Inland and Boston-to-Montreal routes. The NNEIRI Study Team chose an analysis year of 2035 

to assess the full impacts of service implementation. The 20-year time horizon is a standard FRA 

requirement for long-range rail planning.

Existing and Proposed Passenger Service

The No-Build Alternative assumes the continuation of the passenger rail services that currently 

operate on the NNEIRI Corridor, including:

 MBTA Southside Commuter Rail Services (Boston South Station – Back Bay Station);

 MBTA Worcester Line Service (Boston to Worcester);

 Amtrak Lakeshore Limited Service (Boston to Chicago via Springfield and Albany);

 Amtrak Vermonter Service (Washington, D.C. to St. Albans via New Haven, Springfield, 

and White River Junction); and

 Amtrak Northeast Shuttle and Northeast Regional Service (New Haven to Springfield).

In addition, new and improved passenger rail operations are anticipated for:

 MassDOT Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter Project service changes between 

Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts;

 CTDOT New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Service between New Haven, 

Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts; and

 Amtrak Vermonter extension from St. Albans, Vermont to Montreal, Quebec on the 

NECR and CN Lines.

Existing intercity passenger rail service along the NNEIRI Corridor varies significantly by 

segment, ranging from 24 daily round trips between Boston and Worcester to one round trip each 

between Springfield and St. Albans, and Springfield and Worcester. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

8

Current and Planned Infrastructure Upgrades

The No-Build Alternative assumes known capacity and speed upgrades to the NNEIRI Corridor

that are currently in progress or planned to occur. Completed or underway improvements

include:

 As part of the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter Project, Amtrak Vermonter 

service has been reestablished along the Connecticut River Line between Springfield and 

East Northfield, Massachusetts. Service on this track segment began in December 2014 

and all related project work will be completed in fall 2016;

 CTDOT infrastructure improvements on the NHHS rail line, including double tracking 

and station improvements between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield; and

 Restoration of Springfield Union Station, including installation of a high level station 

platform.

Planned improvements include:

 Expansion of Boston South Station to accommodate additional track capacity, train 

storage space, and provide additional station platforms;

 Construction of a new U.S. Customs and Immigration Services and Canada Border 

Services Agency station at Montreal Central Station Customs Checkpoint to allow faster 

travel in and out of Canada for passenger trains; and

 Improvements to infrastructure between the U.S. border and Montreal, Quebec identified 

in the Quebec Ministry of Transportation study, Study Of CN And CP’s Rail Networks 

Between Montréal And The U.S. Border released in 2014.

e. Build Alternative

Based on the preliminary build alternatives analysis, stakeholder input, public meetings, and 

technical review by public agencies, the NNEIRI Study Team developed a single Build 

Alternative. The Build Alternative is based on a combination of elements from the three 

preliminary build alternatives that best addressed the NNEIRI Study’s Purpose and Need, while 

balancing feasibility and cost effectiveness.

The three primary factors used to determine the Build Alternative were infrastructure constraints, 

ridership, and cost. The Build Alternative is most similar to Preliminary Build Alternative 2 in 

terms of infrastructure, but it also includes changes to the proposed service plan. Capacity 

constraints in the vicinity of Montreal as well as anticipated limited ridership based on ridership 

forecasting on the Boston to Montreal service warranted reducing the proposed service in that 

segment. The Build Alternative eliminates Express Service because it would result in minimal

travel time savings and effect on ridership. Table 5-2 compares the Build Alternative to

Preliminary Build Alternative 2. Figure 5-1 profiles the services and speeds of the Build 

Alternative. 

The Build Alternative would utilize existing rail corridors and existing stations except at Palmer, 

Massachusetts where a new station is proposed, and at Worcester Station where an additional 

passenger platform is proposed. The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track in 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

9

all locations between Springfield and Worcester in Massachusetts where second track existed 

historically, but is currently single tracked, and between Brattleboro and Bellows Falls, and St. 

Albans and Swanton in Vermont where single track currently exists. The segment between 

Springfield and Montreal has portions which currently have two tracks, historically had two 

tracks, or have always been single tracked with sidings. A new third track is proposed between 

Spencer and East Brookfield in Massachusetts where double tracks currently exist. The Build 

Alternative proposes to extend passing sidings at East Northfield, Massachusetts to Vernon, 

Vermont and at Randolph and Roxbury, Vermont.

The Build Alternative would add eight new daily round trip trains between Boston and New 

Haven, one new daily round trip between Boston and Montreal, and one new daily round 

between New Haven and Montreal. The NNEIRI service would use the same border crossing as 

the existing NECR line and is the same border crossing that was used by the legacy Amtrak 

Montrealer service.

Table 5-2: Preliminary Build Alternative 2 vs. Build Alternative 

Preliminary Build Alternative 2 Build Alternative

Top Speed 79 MPH 79 MPH

Express Service Yes No

BOS to NHV Roundtrips 8 8

BOS to MTL Roundtrips 3 1

NHV to MTL Roundtrips (Including Vermonter) 3 2

Worcester to Springfield Double Track Yes Yes

Additional Vermont Sidings Yes Yes

Infrastructure Costs (Excluding Trainsets) $610-760M5$736-821M

Annual Ridership (2035) 1,201,200 875,700

 

5

Preliminary Build Alternative 2’s infrastructure costs are higher than the Build Alternative due to refinement in the 

infrastructure cost between the Alternatives Analysis and Service Development Plans. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

10

Figure 5-1: Build Alternative Services and Speeds

Build Alternative Service Plan

Boston to Montreal

There is currently no passenger rail service in the region connecting northern New England to

Montreal. Amtrak’s Adirondack line currently serves Montreal, but the route originates in New 

York City and only travels through the state of New York. Under the Build Alternative, one new

roundtrip local service train would operate daily between Boston and Montreal, with trains 

serving all existing stations and a new station that would be constructed in Palmer, 

Massachusetts. The frequency of service is optimal due to the level of demand anticipated in the 

NNEIRI Study Team’s ridership forecasting. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

11

Station stops would include:

 Boston (South Station and Back Bay)

 Framingham

 Worcester

 Palmer

 Springfield*

 Holyoke*

 Northampton*

 Greenfield*

 Brattleboro

 Bellows Falls

 Claremont

 Windsor (Vermont)

 White River Junction

 Randolph

 Montpelier

 Waterbury

 Burlington (Essex Junction)

 St. Albans

 Montreal (Central Station)

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS and Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EAs.

New Haven to Montreal

Under the Build Alternative, one new roundtrip local service train would operate daily between 

New Haven and Montreal. This additional NNEIRI service would complement Amtrak’s

Vermonter service and provide additional services to meet demand anticipated by ridership 

studies.6Station stops would include:

 New Haven*

 Wallingford*

 Meriden*

 Berlin*

 Hartford*

 Windsor (Connecticut)*

 Windsor Locks*

 Springfield*

 Holyoke*

 Northampton*

 Greenfield*

 Brattleboro

 Bellows Falls

 Claremont

 Windsor (Vermont)

 White River Junction

 Randolph

 Montpelier

 Waterbury

 Burlington (Essex Junction)

 St. Albans

 Montreal (Central Station)

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS and Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EAs.

Boston to New Haven

Under the Build Alternative, eight new round trips would operate daily between Boston, 

Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. These services would be extensions of existing 

services operating on the NNEIRI Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 

Massachusetts. The ultimate destination of each train (i.e., New Haven, New York, or 

Washington, D.C.) would be determined through discussions with Amtrak and coordination with 

other services operating along the Northeast Corridor at the time of NNEIRI service 

implementation. The service would make station stops at:

 

6

The NNEIRI Study assumes the extension of the Vermonter service to Montreal would occur as part of the No 

 Build Alternative.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

12

 Boston (South Station and Back Bay)

 Framingham

 Worcester

 Palmer

 Springfield*

 Windsor Locks*

 Windsor (Connecticut)*

 Hartford*

 Berlin*

 Meriden*

 Wallingford*

 New Haven*

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS EA.

Table 5-3 compares by segment the Build Alternative passenger rail service to the existing 

weekday passenger rail service and the anticipated No-Build Alternative passenger rail service.

Table 5-3. Summary of Weekday Revenue Passenger Service

Segment Operator(s)

Existing 

Revenue Daily 

Round trips

No-Build

Alternative 

2035 Revenue 

Daily Round

Trips

Build Alternative 

2035 Revenue 

Daily Round Trips

Boston to Worcester MBTA 23 23 23

Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Worcester to Springfield Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to New Haven Amtrak (Northeast Regional Shuttle, 

Northeast Regional & Vermonter) 6-8 25 25

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to St. Albans Amtrak Vermonter 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 2

Note: 

* Of the total 9 daily round trip trains, 8 are extensions of the existing shuttle services that operate on the Corridor 

between New Haven and Springfield. 

Build Alternative Infrastructure Program

The Build Alternative would require infrastructure upgrades at some locations on the NNEIRI 

Corridor to provide additional capacity and support increased speed. The Build Alternative’s 

track upgrades would support a maximum speed of 79 mph where possible. A second track or 

passing siding would be added in certain locations to support increased passenger and freight 

service. Full signalization would be installed in locations where it does not currently exist.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

13

Right-of-Way (ROW)

The Build Alternative does not propose any changes to the existing track alignment and all track 

work would take place within the existing railroad ROW. However, certain segments of the 

ROW would require improvements to accommodate increased speed and capacity. The following 

describes these improvements by segment.

Boston to Springfield – The Build Alternative would not necessitate significant changes on the 

line between Boston and Worcester. Beginning in Worcester, the following upgrades would be 

necessary to accommodate passenger operations and existing freight traffic. 

• Track Improvements: Track upgrades would allow for FRA Class 4 train operations 

between Worcester and Springfield, allowing passenger trains to operate up to 79 mph 

where track geometry allows. The Build Alternative would include two miles of new track, 

three new turnouts, and one railroad crossing upgrade.

• Track Capacity Upgrades: The ROW between Worcester and Springfield was historically a 

double track corridor. However, most of the second track was removed in the mid- 20th 

century. The additional NNEIRI service of the Build Alternative would require the 

reconstruction of the second track between Worcester and Springfield in all locations 

where it existed historically, but is currently single tracked. In addition, one double track 

location in this segment would require an additional siding to accommodate NNEIRI 

service. The location is Spencer to East Brookfield (Milepost 59.3-63.3).

• Bridge Work: The Build Alternative would utilize existing bridges and improve them, 

where necessary, in order to accommodate the proposed service. Bridge work would 

include approximately 2,135 feet of bridge rehabilitation as well as 1,805 feet of bridge 

redecking. Bridge work is necessary for the restoration of the second track between Boston 

and Springfield and would take place on the CSX-owned track sections.

Springfield to the Canadian Border - The Build Alternative would require upgrades to 

accommodate passenger operations and existing freight traffic, as follows:

• Track Improvements: Track upgrades would allow for Class 4 train operations between 

Springfield and the Canadian Border, allowing passenger trains to operate up to 79 mph 

where track geometry allows. The Build Alternative would include 40 miles of new track, 

45 new turnouts, and 18 railroad crossing upgrades.

• Track Capacity Upgrades: To accommodate the Build Alternative’s increased passenger 

service in this segment, a second track or passing siding would be added at 6 segments 

and/or locations from East Northfield, Massachusetts to Swanton, Vermont.

• Bridge Work: The Build Alternative would utilize existing bridges and improve them, 

where necessary, in order to accommodate the proposed service. This work would include 

approximately 350 feet of bridge replacement for Walpole, New Hampshire and East 

Alburgh, Vermont.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

14

Signal Systems

The NNEIRI Corridor currently has train control signal systems between Boston and Springfield. 

Due to the additional level of service of the Build Alternative, a full train control signal system 

would be needed along the full length of the ROW. The Build Alternative would include stateof-good-repair conditions for signals and grade crossings.

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added over the areas of the NECR that are currently 

under Track Warrant Control (TWC) and compatible with positive train control (PTC) regulatory 

requirements, including the section from East Northfield, Massachusetts to West River (located 

in Brattleboro, Vermont), and from White River Junction, Vermont to the Canadian border at 

Alburgh, Vermont. To upgrade to CTC in these Vermont areas, 57 intermediate signals would

be installed approximately every two miles along the line and interlocking signals would be 

added at both ends of key existing passing sidings intended for use in this area. These sidings are 

located at St. Albans, Oakland (Georgia), Berlin, Roxbury, Bethel, S. Royalton, Hartland, 

Swanton, Fonda Jct. (Swanton), Bolton, Randolph, and Brattleboro.

Station Infrastructure

The Build Alternative would not require any major improvements to existing stations on the

NNEIRI Corridor, except for the construction of an additional passenger platform at Worcester 

Union Station. The new platform would be located in the center of the existing ROW. 

Connection to the Worcester Union Station would be provided via a new vertical access to an 

existing pedestrian tunnel that was historically used to connect passengers to center island 

platforms. Tracks at the station would be re-configured to accommodate the new platform, 

including the addition of new interlockings. Additionally, a controlled siding in Worcester would

be taken out of service to accommodate the new platform and track configuration.

In addition, the Build Alternative proposes service to Palmer, Massachusetts, which would

require construction of a new station in the town. Despite a historic headhouse and station 

platforms, the configuration of the existing historic station in Palmer precludes the installation of 

high level platforms and double main tracks that are included in the Build Alternative. The exact

location of a new station in Palmer would be determined upon further refinement in a later phase 

of the NNEIRI Study and evaluated in a future project level, Tier 2 analysis.

Ridership Forecasts

Based on the 2035 annual ridership forecasts, the Build Alternative would result in a total of 

875,000 annual riders (an increase of 795,100 riders over the No-Build Alternative) and an annual 

diversion of 113,847,700 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Table 5-4 summarizes the 2035 annual 

forecast results.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

15

Table 5-4. 2035 Annual Forecast Results 

No-Build Alternative Build Alternative 

Total Annual Ridershipa79,900 875,000

Incremental Ridershipb795,100

Total Annual VMT Diverteda113,847,700

Notes:

a Ridership is based on boardings with origins and/or destinations in the NNEIRI Corridor. The ridership does 

not include trips in the NHHS Corridor, including between Springfield, New Haven, and New York/NEC.

b Relative to No-Build Alternative. Ridership is based on boardings.

5 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

MassDOT, VTrans, and FRA have selected the Build Alternative for the NNEIRI Study

(Selected Alternative). The No-Build Alternative was not selected because it would not meet the 

NNERI Study’s Purpose and Need of enhancing intercity transportation options in New England. 

The Selected Alternative would allow for more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail 

service on two major rail routes, the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route, connecting 

cities in northern New England and adding service from the region to Montreal where it 

currently does not exist.

6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

Based upon the EA (which along with associated appendices are incorporated by reference in 

this FONSI), the FRA has concluded the Selected Alternative will have no foreseeable 

significant impact on the quality of the natural and human environment, in large part due to the 

use of existing operating rail lines within existing ROW, and the proposed infrastructure 

improvements being located within alignments that were in the past double or triple tracked. The 

FRA finds the Selected Alternative is best able to achieve the NNERI Study’s Purpose and Need 

without significant environmental impacts and by minimizing costs.

If the NNEIRI Study 1) advances to the project level; and 2) federal approval is required or 

federal funding is provided for implementation of any of the improvements described in the 

Selected Alternative, individual project proponent(s) would follow the Tier 1 EA with a Tier 2 

analysis, or analyses. The Tier 2 analysis, or analyses, would identify and evaluate projectspecific impacts, and describe any mitigation measures associated with those impacts. 

The FONSI focuses only on those resources that have a reasonable likelihood to be adversely 

affected by the NNEIRI Study. The following potential impact areas are not located within the 

NNEIRI Study’s study area or will otherwise not be significantly adversely affected by the 

NNEIRI Study, and are therefore not addressed in this FONSI: coastal zone management, solid 

waste disposal, recreational resources, and use of natural resources, such as water, minerals, or 

timber. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

16

The potential environmental impacts of the NNIERI Study are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 

6-1 also presents the additional NEPA analysis that may be needed at Tier 2, if: (1) the proposed 

improvements described in the Selected Alternative are advanced through design; and (2) there is

federal funding for construction of those improvements and/or required federal permitting or 

other approval. Mitigation measures for Tier 2 project(s) are also described in the table. 

Table 6-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences and Next Steps

Environmental 

Resource Impact of Selected Alternative

Next Steps

Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

Air Quality

A shift to passenger rail expected to 

reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

and improve regional air quality.

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated. 

General Conformity analysis 

would be conducted by FRA 

or other lead federal agency.

Noise and 

Vibration

Potential for a total of 435 severe 

noise impacts, 11,827 moderate noise 

impacts, and 2,234 vibration 

annoyance impacts. *

*

Impacts based on worst case 

scenario, estimates would likely 

decrease when a more detailed 

analysis is performed.

Mitigation measures would 

be required for any severe 

noise impacts. These may 

include noise barriers, 

operational changes, 

stationary wayside horns at 

grade crossings, horn shrouds 

on locomotives, and resilient 

rail fasteners and ties. 

Project level analysis by FRA 

or another lead federal 

agency would more precisely 

determine the number of 

potential noise and vibration 

impacts that may require 

mitigation. 

Flood Hazards 

and Floodplain 

Management

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would 

take place within or adjacent to 

mapped floodplain for approximately 

28 miles. Impacts expected to be 

minor due to restoration of 

historically double-tracked corridor. 

If significant impacts are 

unavoidable, mitigation 

would be required, such 

mitigation could include

constructing a 

detention/retention basin to 

handle runoff and any lost 

flood storage capacity.

Tier 2 project proponent(s) 

would attempt to avoid and 

minimize loss of flood 

storage capacity. Potential 

impacts to floodplains would 

require further assessment 

and agency coordination to 

determine whether mitigation 

measures are necessary.

Water Quality

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would 

take place within or adjacent to water 

resources in MA and VT. Impacts 

expected to be minor due to

restoration of historically doubletracked corridor.

All construction activities 

would comply with the 

applicable state’s stormwater 

quality manual. Best 

Management Practices 

(BMP)s for erosion and 

sedimentation control would 

be followed.

Design details would be 

developed to avoid or reduce 

potential water quality 

impacts associated with the 

Selected Alternative. The 

Tier 2 project proponent(s) 

would coordinate with 

Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

(VTDEC) and Massachusetts 

Department of 

Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP) for final designs 

and permits.

Wetlands

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would 

take place for approximately 13 

miles within mapped wetland buffer 

area in MA and VT. Impacts 

If significant wetland impacts 

cannot be avoided, mitigation 

measures that compensate for 

or offset those impacts would 

be required. Such measures

Tier 2 project proponent(s) 

would attempt to avoid and 

minimize wetland impacts. 

Potential impacts to wetlands 

would require further 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

17

Environmental 

Resource Impact of Selected Alternative

Next Steps

Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

expected to be minor due to

restoration of historically double 

tracked corridor.

could include restoration, 

creation, enhancement, 

and/or preservation of 

wetlands.

assessment and be subject to 

state and federal permitting 

requirements. 

Ecological 

Systems,

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species (T&E), 

and Wildlife

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would 

take place within or adjacent to 

mapped endangered species habitat 

for approximately 16 miles. 

Construction activities could require 

clearing of trees and vegetation that 

serve as habitat for protected species. 

Impacts expected to be minor due to 

utilization of historically double 

tracked corridor.

If significant impacts cannot 

be avoided, then mitigation 

measures include but are not 

limited to: pre- and/or postconstruction monitoring of 

populations, and restoration, 

enhancement, and 

conservation of impacted 

habitats. Appropriate 

mitigation would be 

determined through 

consultation under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species 

Act during Tier 2.

The Tier 2 the project 

proponent(s) would confirm 

records of federal- or statelisted species with the 

appropriate resource agencies 

and seek to avoid and 

minimize impacts. FRA or 

another lead federal agency 

would informally or formally 

consult, as necessary, with 

the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service in accordance with 

Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act.

Land Use, 

Existing and 

Planned

No impacts anticipated due to use of 

existing rail corridor.

Improvements would be consistent 

with existing land use as a 

transportation corridor.

Palmer Station is not anticipated to 

have impacts on land use because 

any new improvements would be 

limited to the existing railroad ROW 

and would be consistent with the 

existing local land use and zoning. 

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

During Tier 2, the location 

and design of a new Palmer 

Station would be determined. 

Project proponent(s) would 

coordinate with the affected 

municipalities to ensure 

compatibility with present 

and future land uses.

Socioeconomic 

and 

Environmental 

Justice

Potential beneficial impact on 

economic development and EJ 

populations in the vicinity of existing 

and proposed stations is anticipated

as there is a high percentage of 

minority and low-income populations

near the stations along the NNEIRI 

Corridor. Positive impacts are 

anticipated through service 

enhancements and additional trains, 

which would improve access to 

regional passenger rail services and 

to employment and commercial 

centers. 

Any potential mitigation 

measures, if required, would 

be determined during the Tier 

2 project level analysis. 

Upon completion of 

engineering plans, additional 

EJ analysis would be 

conducted by the project 

proponent(s).

Possible Barriers 

to the Elderly 

and Handicapped

Positive impacts to elderly and 

handicapped persons are anticipated, 

as people who cannot drive may be 

able to use rail service. Does not 

create any additional barriers to 

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

Further analysis not 

anticipated.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

18

Environmental 

Resource Impact of Selected Alternative

Next Steps

Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

elderly and handicapped. 

Public Health 

and Safety

Positive impacts are anticipated 

through the diversion of 113 million 

vehicle miles travelled per year 

(analysis year 2035) to rail mode, 

which has a low fatality rate 

compared to motor vehicles. 

Improvements to some signals and 

grade crossings would result in a 

benefit to public health and safety.

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

Further analysis not 

anticipated.

Hazardous 

Materials

No impacts anticipated. No active 

hazardous waste sites were identified 

in locations where construction 

would take place. 

If required, mitigation 

measures may include soil 

samples to determine the 

nature of contaminated soil, 

storage techniques that 

contain run-off, use of 

material within ROW, and 

requirements for transporting 

and disposing of unused 

contaminated materials.

If hazardous materials are 

encountered during 

construction, the project 

proponent(s) would 

coordinate with MassDEP 

and VTDEC, as appropriate,

to comply with all applicable 

regulations.

Aesthetic and 

Design Quality 

Impacts

No impacts anticipated. There may 

be potential visual impacts at Palmer 

due to construction of a new station. 

Palmer Station design would be 

addressed during Tier 2.

No impacts anticipated at Worcester 

Union Station since the platform 

would be located within the ROW in 

an area historically used for station 

platforms and the elevator and stair 

would be connected from tunnel 

below the tracks; therefore, no visual 

impacts to Worcester Union Station 

are anticipated.

If necessary, mitigation 

strategies could include

landscaping to screen views 

of adverse impacts or use of 

building materials consistent 

with the surrounding area. 

During Tier 2, more details 

relating to the design of a 

new Palmer Station and a 

platform at Worcester Union 

Station would be developed. 

At that time, further analysis 

would be conducted to 

determine any adverse visual 

impacts.

Cultural 

Resources and 

Historic 

Properties

Based on the nature of the 

improvements that would be 

necessary to implement NNEIRI 

service, direct and indirect effects to 

historic properties are likely. 

Replacement or rehabilitation of 

bridges would directly affect these 

resources. Ground disturbing 

activities in undisturbed areas could 

potentially affect archaeological 

resources. Construction of new 

railroad infrastructure and increased 

train frequencies and speeds could 

potentially result in visual, noise, 

If adverse effects to 

properties listed in or eligible 

for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) are determined, 

measures to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate those effects 

would be developed through

consultation with the 

appropriate State Historic 

Preservation Officer(s) and 

other consulting parties as 

part of consultation under 

Section 106 of the National 

The National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 

process would be followed if 

construction of the Selected

Alternative receives federal 

funding or permits. This 

would involve defining the 

project Area of Potential 

Effects (APE), further 

identification of historic 

properties, assessment of 

effects, and resolution of 

adverse effects by FRA or 

another lead federal agency 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

19

Environmental 

Resource Impact of Selected Alternative

Next Steps

Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

and/or vibration effects to historic 

architectural resources adjacent to the 

ROW. At the Tier 1 level, there is not 

enough information to be able to 

assess and determine effects to 

historic properties.

Historic Preservation Act at 

Tier 2.

in consultation with the MA, 

NH and/or VT SHPOs and 

other consulting parties as 

appropriate.

Section 11504 of the Fixing 

America's Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act 

(Pub. L. 114-94) enacted on 

December 4, 2015 mandates 

the development of a Section

106 exemption for railroad 

ROW; it is possible that 

certain railroad-related 

properties along the NNEIRI 

Corridor will be exempt from 

the requirements of Section 

106 in the future.

4(f) Protected 

Properties

Based on the type of improvements 

that would be necessary to 

implement NNEIRI service, there is 

the potential for the use of 4(f) 

historic properties. However, at the 

Tier 1 level, there is not enough 

information to be able to assess and 

determine the use of these properties.

Improvements that would be 

necessary to implement NNEIRI 

service are not anticipated to require 

the use of other types of 4(f)-

protected resources (e.g., parks, 

wildlife refuges), because the 

improvements would be located 

within the existing ROW of active 

rail corridors.

If there is both the use of a 

4(f) property and no prudent 

and feasible alternative, the 

project would include all 

possible planning to 

minimize harm.

Full Section 4(f) analysis 

would occur during Tier 2 

project level analysis to 

determine impacts to publicly 

owned parks, recreation 

areas, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, public or private 

historic sites, historic bridges 

and culverts and possible 

archaeological sites. A 4(f) 

determination would be made 

at Tier 2.

Section 6(f) 

Lands

Improvements would be limited to 

the existing ROW and therefore 

impacts to 6(f) properties are 

unlikely. 

If a conversion of 6(f) 

property is required, a 

request must be submitted to 

the NPS including a proposal 

to substitute the property 

with another of equal or 

better usefulness and value.

During Tier 2, once the 

design has advanced, 

additional data may be 

collected regarding 6(f) 

properties to determine 

impacts.

Traffic and 

Transportation

Given the low number of traffic 

movements anticipated at each 

station, significant impacts are 

unlikely. The addition of passenger 

rail service would result in benefits to 

transportation by providing options 

for modes of travel.

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

As the design develops and 

more data can be collected, 

further traffic impact analysis 

around stations would be 

conducted during Tier 2.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

20

Environmental 

Resource Impact of Selected Alternative

Next Steps

Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

Use of Energy 

Resources

Beneficial impact to energy resources 

due to overall energy reduction from 

diverting passenger car trips.

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

Construction impact analysis 

would be conducted during 

Tier 2.

Construction 

Period Impacts

Construction-related impacts would 

be temporary at any given location 

along the NNEIRI Corridor. Track 

work would largely be sited within 

the existing rail ROW using railmounted equipment, and should not 

involve large quantities of earthwork.

Construction-phasing plans 

that avoid, minimize or 

mitigate temporary impacts 

would be developed in 

coordination with appropriate 

agencies. Temporarily 

impacted natural resources 

would be restored to their 

pre-construction conditions.

Standard construction BMPs 

would be followed to address 

stormwater runoff, fugitive 

dust, emissions from 

construction equipment, etc.

During Tier 2, the duration of 

construction would be better 

defined and appropriate 

mitigation measures 

identified. The sequence and 

extent of construction would 

be determined and staging 

plans developed.

Indirect and 

Cumulative 

Impacts

Indirect and cumulative impacts 

generally beneficial due to induced 

development and additional 

transportation mode choice.

Mitigation measures not 

anticipated.

During Tier 2, once the 

design has advanced, further 

evaluation of indirect and 

cumulative impacts would be 

conducted.

7 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND COORDINATION

MassDOT and VTrans formed a Stakeholder Committee to provide oversight, direction and 

primary product review for the NNEIRI Study. The committee was comprised of key 

stakeholders, including MassDOT, CTDOT, VTrans, Québec Ministry of Transportation, New 

Hampshire Department of Transportation, FRA, Amtrak, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North), CSX, 

NECR, and thirteen regional planning commissions located in Massachusetts, Vermont, 

Connecticut and New Hampshire. 

The NNEIRI Study Team used feedback from stakeholder meetings to develop the Build 

Alternative. MassDOT and VTrans integrated public participation into the study process through 

the Stakeholder Committee, public outreach meetings, a project website, newsletters/bulletins,

and coordination with other rail projects such as the NHHS Project, Vermont Rail Plan and 

Northeast Corridor (NEC) Future.

Stakeholder and public outreach was carried out with the following six major objectives: 

 Identify a broad range of stakeholders from all geographic regions of the NNEIRI Corridor.

 Integrate public outreach activities and meetings with key study tasks and key milestones. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

21

 Engage potentially affected communities, including minority and low-income populations, 

in compliance with the Title VI of the U.S. 1964 Civil Rights Act and Environmental 

Justice Executive Order 12898. 

 Provide written materials and communication to non-English speaking populations. 

 Consider public input. Monitor public comments submitted through the NNEIRI Study 

website, emails and letters to staff, comment forms received at public meetings, and 

provide direct responses to questions posed by members of the public. 

 Utilize many communication tools. Provide information in multiple formats to reach a 

broad spectrum of the public. 

MassDOT and VTrans conducted five Stakeholder Committee meetings between December 

2013 and June 2015. The Stakeholder Committee supported the goals and objectives of the 

NNEIRI Study and provided feedback through open discussion during the Stakeholder

Committee meetings on all study documents produced, including the Existing Conditions 

Assessment, statement of Purpose and Need, Station Site Assessment and Guidelines, 

Alternatives Analysis Report, and draft SDPs. 

MassDOT and VTrans held three rounds of public meetings. There were two meetings in each 

round, except for the third and final round in which there were three public meetings. In January 

2014, a meeting was held in White River Junction, Vermont and in Springfield, Massachusetts 

with approximately 40 and 115 attendees, respectively. In November 2014, a meeting was held 

in White River Junction, Vermont and in Worcester, Massachusetts, with each drawing 

approximately 35 attendees. The final round of meetings occurred in September 2015, in Boston 

and Springfield, Massachusetts and White River Junction, Vermont. Each drew approximately 

15, 50 and 30 attendees, respectively.

Public input included comments specific to a region, such as advocacy for the preservation of a 

station stop in Claremont, New Hampshire and disappointment that the NNEIRI Study did not 

focus on increasing passenger service to the Berkshire Region of western Massachusetts, as well 

as common overarching themes. Many meeting attendees cited the need for more frequent trains, 

not high speed trains, and better connections to airports and intercity bus service. Several people 

said more trains should be run on existing tracks as soon as possible while plans for track and 

train set upgrades are developed. Assumptions used to project ridership and costs were discussed 

at the public meetings. Attendees offered the opinion that ridership projections were too low. 

Public views about the cost of establishing new rail service varied. Some thought the projected 

costs were too high while others thought they were too low because they believed the need to 

replace railroad infrastructure such as bridges was underestimated.

Twenty-seven (27) written comments have been received since the initiation of the NNEIRI 

Study. Several comments were submitted by members of the Stakeholder Committee or by 

attendees of the public meetings. Many of the comments reiterated themes expressed at 

previously held meetings such as advocacy for station stops, especially the Claremont, New 

Hampshire station and at Palmer, Massachusetts. Throughout the study, the NNEIRI Study 

Team explained how the NNEIRI service would serve these communities as analysis showed 

that intercity service within the NNEIRI Corridor yielded the majority of the ridership, not the 

longer end-to-end passenger trip. Members of the public in Southern Vermont advocated for 

better connections between Brattleboro, Vermont to Boston and to New York City. The NNEIRI